Conger

The Episcopal Church’s legal battles entered a new phase last week, as lawyers for the national church filed suit in California against the Bishop and Diocese of San Joaquin in a bid to take control of its assets, while the Methodist Church sought to enter the fray in Virginia on behalf of the diocese.

Lawyers for the national church filed suit in a Fresno County Superior Court on April 24, seeking to transfer the assets of the diocese under the control of Bishop John-David Schofield based in Fresno to the new diocese based in Stockton created by Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori under former Northern California Bishop Jerry Lamb.

“While it is regrettable that legal action is necessary, the diocese and The Episcopal Church have no other viable option but to seek the intervention of the court to recover the property and assets of the diocese,” said Bishop Lamb, the provisional Bishop of San Joaquin–Stockton

Last December, a supermajority of clergy and lay delegates at the San Joaquin-Fresno synod voted to quit the Episcopal Church and join the Province of the Southern Cone. Dioceses may not succeed from the Episcopal Church as “such actions are contrary to the Canons and Constitution of The Episcopal Church and the diocese,” the media Stockton diocese said.

Writing to the Fresno diocese, Bishop Schofield said, “please be assured that we have been expecting this litigation, and the contents contain no surprises,” adding that “in spite of the claims by The Episcopal Church, nothing in their current constitution and canons prohibits a diocese from leaving one province and moving to another.”

Bishop Schori’s handling of the San Joaquin affair has raised concerns. One group of bishops and church leaders commissioned a legal opinion on the validity of her actions from an international lawyer, who concluded she had committed 11 violations of canon law and should be brought to trial for abuse of office.

The Presiding Bishop issued a counter statement the same day, saying that her advisors had concluded that she had properly interpreted church canons. The Episcopal Church has no independent judiciary and has no way of reconciling opposing views save through political confrontations.

In Virginia the United Methodist Church on April 24 filed a brief in support of the national church and Diocese of Virginia against the breakaway congregations now grouped under the banner of CANA.

The Methodist Church argued that Virginia’s law granting congregations to withdraw from their parent churches in the case of schisms raised questions of the “appropriateness of the government’s intrusion into the freedom of any church body to organize and govern itself according to its own faith and doctrine.”

Virginia’s Attorney-General Robert McDowell in January filed a brief opposing the national Episcopal Church’s. A spokesman for the breakaway congregations, Jim Oakes, said the law, enacted in the wake of denominational splits following the American Civil War, was a tested and “reasonably neutral way for the state to adjudicate” the dispute.

The Bishop of New Hampshire has not been banned in Britain, a spokesman for the Archbishop of Canterbury tells The Church of England Newspaper, denying press speculation Bishop Gene Robinson had been muzzled by Dr. Rowan Williams from preaching in England.

On May 2, Lambeth Palace confirmed Bishop Robinson was not granted a license to officiate—to celebrate the Eucharist and other sacramental acts. However it was an exaggeration to say he had been banned from preaching as canon law does not permit the archbishop to ban preachers, his spokesman said.

On April 29 Bishop Robinson told the congregation at St Mary’s Putney that he had received an email from Dr. Williams that morning refusing his request to officiate and preach in the Province of Canterbury. The following day, the Episcopal News Service reported that Archbishop Williams would not permit Bishop Robinson “to preach or preside at a Eucharist while he is in England, according to reports.”

In Britain to promote his new book, “In the eye of the storm: Swept to the center by God,” Bishop Robinson told the BBC’s Hardtalk programme “in the past “[Dr. Williams] has … declined to give me permission to preach and to celebrate the Holy Communion and I would never do so without his permission.”

Under Canon C17.6 “by statute law it belongs to the archbishop to give permission to officiate within his province to any minister who has been ordained” by an “overseas” province. However, Canon B18.2 gives the authority of determining who may preach to the parish incumbent—with the permission of the diocesan bishop.

Bishop Robinson had sought permission to officiate in the past and Dr. Williams had declined to accede to that request, the spokesman said. Bishop Robinson had again broached the topic, seeking permission to officiate this summer and had also sought Dr. Williams’ endorsement to preach.

Dr. Williams again declined to license him, and had given “no endorsement for any of the invitations [Bishop Robinson] has received” to preach, the Archbishop of Canterbury’s Press Secretary the Rev. Jonathan Jennings said.

Lambeth Palace press officer Marie Papworth told CEN copies of the correspondence would not be made public as it was the Archbishop’s policy not to disclose the contents of private communications.

The Archbishop of York’s press secretary, the Rev. Canon Arun Arora, stated he was unaware of any request from Bishop Robinson to officiate in the Province of York. Bishop Robinson did not respond to our request for clarification.

There is nothing new under the sun. The dispute in San Joaquin has its precursor in the Colenso affair in South Africa in the 1860’s.

The caption reads:

The Zulu Bride

Bishop Tait: “Stay! — I protest!–”

Bishop Gray: “Upon what grounds, my Lord?”

Bishop Tait: “Bigamy! she’s married already.”

Dr. Gray, Bishop of Cape Town, was proceeding to consecrate the Rev. Mr. Macrorie as Bishop of Natal, with the avowed purposed of expelling Dr. Colenso the existing Bishop of that see, from the ministration of his holy office, when the Bishop of London, (Dr. Tait) published a strong letter, interposing, and the scheme was frustrated.–February 1868 (Punch)

Organizers of Gafcon report that as of April 25, 267 bishops have registered for the June meeting in Jerusalem.

Denounced as a rival gathering to the July Lambeth conference, a detailed agenda has yet to be released. Like Lambeth much of the conference will be devoted to worship and spiritual reflection. However, Gafcon will play host to bishops, clergy and lay leaders, and will also seek to formulate a common approach to the divisions of doctrine and discipline within the Anglican Communion.

Approximately 150 bishops and conferees from Muslim majority countries unable to travel freely to Israel along with the Gafcon leadership team will meet at a resort on the Dead Sea in Jordan from June 18-22, while a further 600 are expected to join the self-styled “pilgrimage” in Jerusalem from June 22-29.

Organizers note that many of the bishops attending Gafcon will also be among the 625 bishops attending the Lambeth Conference. While the Archbishops of Nigeria, Uganda and Rwanda and their bishops have said that as it is currently organized, they will not attend Lambeth, the Presiding Bishop of the Southern Cone Gregory Venables announced last week that he will go to Lambeth.

Bishop Robert Duncan of Pittsburgh announced on May 6 that he would attend Lambeth and Gafcon, joining Fort Worth Bishop Jack Iker and the other conservative American bishops in attending both meetings.

“After consulting with the people of Pittsburgh and our friends around the globe, we have come to the conclusion that it is necessary for us to be present at both gatherings,” said Bishop Robert Duncan. The American conservative leader said that he would attend the first half of Lambeth, from July 16-25, and that his suffragan, Bishop Henry Scriven will attend from July 26-Aug 3.

At Gafcon, “we will be among friends, focused squarely on the Gospel, and dealing openly with how we build the missionary relationships, covenantal boundaries and responsible structures for the future of Anglicanism,” he said.

At Lambeth, “those who accuse us of abandoning the Anglican Communion will certainly be present and vocal,” he noted. “It is important for us to be able to respond directly to their claims about the situation in the Episcopal Church and our place in the Communion,” he said.

First published in The Living Church.

Bishop V. Gene Robinson of New Hampshire has not been banned from pulpits in the Church of England according to a spokesman for the Archbishop of Canterbury, who denied press speculation that the Archbishop Rowan Williams was attempting to silence Bishop Robinson.

A press officer confirmed on May 2 that Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams had not issued Bishop Robinson a license to officiate in the Province of Canterbury. However, Church of England canon law does not grant the archbishop the authority to ban preachers, the spokesman noted.

While traveling in Britain to promote his book, Bishop Robinson told the BBC “in the past [Archbishop Williams] has… declined to give me permission to preach and to celebrate the Holy Communion and I would never do so without his permission.” Episcopal News Service reported April 30 that Archbishop Williams would not permit Bishop Robinson “to preach or preside at a Eucharist while he is in England, according to reports.”

Under the Church of England’s Canon C17.6 “by statute law it belongs to the archbishop to give permission to officiate within his province to any minister who has been ordained” by an “overseas” province of the Anglican Communion. All visiting clergy who seek to perform the sacraments within the Province of Canterbury must secure the permission of the Archbishop of Canterbury. The same rules apply for the Province of York in the northern part of England. But another canon gives the authority to preach to a parish incumbent, with the permission of the diocesan bishop.

Bishop Robinson has sought permission to officiate in the past and Archbishop Williams has declined to accede to the request, the spokesman said. Bishop Robinson broached the topic again in a letter to Archbishop Williams, seeking permission to officiate in the province this summer and seeking his endorsement to preach. Archbishop Williams again declined to license Bishop Robinson to officiate, and had given “no endorsement for any of the invitations [Bishop Robinson] has received” to preach, said the Rev. Jonathan Jennings, the Archbishop of Canterbury’s press secretary.

The Rev. Arun Arora, director of communications for the Archbishop of York, said he was unaware of any request from Bishop Robinson to officiate in the Province of York.

In a pointed critique of the Episcopal Church, Pope Benedict XVI told participants at an ecumenical prayer service in New York that the decision of some ecclesial communities to place their perceived prophetic witness above all else, weakened the body of Christ.

Speaking at St. Mary’s Roman Catholic Church in Manhattan on April 18 during his five day tour of the US, Benedict did not single out the Episcopal Church by name, but in circumspect terms criticized its innovations of doctrine and discipline. Traditional church protocol was also upended as the Episcopal Church’s representative to the gathering, New York Bishop Mark Sisk, was presented last to the pope from the group of over a dozen Orthodox and Protestant leaders.

The papal snub of the Episcopal Church’s national leadership began at a White House reception hosted by President George W. Bush. The Bishop of Dallas, the Rt. Rev. James Stanton—a leader of the conservative wing of the Episcopal Church—was invited to the reception. However, Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori was not.

Bishop Schori, who was visiting Palm Beach and Miami during the Washington phase of the tour, declined to attend the April 18 ecumenical gathering in New York, citing a prior commitment to dedicate a diocesan building in Utah. In her stead, the Bishop of New York and her deputy for ecumenical relations, the Rt. Rev. C. Christopher Epting, attended the New York event.

Following the consecration of Gene Robinson, the “gay” bishop of New Hampshire, the future pope startled the Anglican world by making a public intervention in the American church’s battle over homosexuality. The then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger sent a letter of greeting to conservative Anglicans gathered in Dallas to protest the Robinson consecration, writing to assure them of his “heartfelt prayers.”

“The lives of these saints show us how in the Church of Christ there is a unity in truth and a communion of grace which transcend the borders of any nation. With this in mind, I pray in particular that God’s will may be done by all those who seek that unity in the truth, the gift of Christ himself,” he told the predominantly evangelical gathering.

In his New York speech last week, Benedict lamented the decision of some Christian communities to depart from traditional teaching “at the time when the world is losing its bearings and needs a persuasive common witness to the saving power of the Gospel.”

“Fundamental Christian beliefs and practices are sometimes changed within communities by so-called ‘prophetic actions’ that are based” on beliefs “not always consonant” with Scripture or Tradition.

Some had abandoned “the attempt to act as a unified body, choosing instead to function according to the idea of ‘local options’,” he said noting that the “relativistic approach” to faith was leading to the fragmentation of the church and a diminution of its witness to the world.

“A clear, convincing testimony to the salvation wrought for us in Christ Jesus has to be based upon the notion of normative apostolic teaching,” the Pope said, and not upon the fashions and fads of the moment.

Sufficient legal grounds exist for presenting Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori for ecclesiastical trial on 11 counts of violating the Constitution and Canons of The Episcopal Church, according to a legal memorandum that has begun circulating among members of the House of Bishops.

A copy of the April 21 document seen by a reporter representing The Living Church states Bishop Jefferts Schori demonstrated a “willful violation of the canons, an intention to repeat the violations, and a pattern of concealment and lack of candor” in her handling of the cases of bishops Robert W. Duncan, John-David Schofield and William Cox, and that she “subverted” the “fundamental polity” of The Episcopal Church in the matter of the Diocese of San Joaquin.

Prepared by an attorney on behalf of a consortium of bishops and church leaders seeking legal counsel over the canonical implications of the Presiding Bishop’s recent actions, it is unclear whether a critical mass of support will form behind the report’s recommendations for any action to be taken, persumably as a violation of the Presiding Bishop’s ordination vows. Title IV, Canon 3, Section 23a requires the consent of three bishops, or 10 or more priests, deacons and communicants “of whom at least two shall be priests. One priest and not less than six lay persons shall be of the diocese of which the respondent is canonically resident.” Victims of sexual misconduct and the Presiding Bishop also may bring charges before the Title IV [disciplinary] Review Committee. Title IV, Canon 3, Section 27 specifies that the Presiding Bishop appoints the five bishops to the Review Committee and the president of the House of Deputies appoints the two members of the clergy and two lay members. A spokeswoman said the Presiding Bishop was unable to respond to the charges as she had not yet seen the memorandum.

The Rev. Ephraim Radner, a member of the Anglican Covenant Design Group, said he found the matters addressed by the brief troubling. The lack of a common understanding of the church’s constitution and canons was “tearing apart our very episcopate and the credibility of our church’s ability to make formal decisions,” he said

The 7,000-word memorandum states it does not address issues of doctrine under Title 4, Canon 1, Section 1c, but limits its review to the “recent actions she has taken against bishops Cox, Schofield and Duncan and the Diocese of San Joaquin.”

The paper argues the Presiding Bishop “failed to seek the inhibition of Bishop Cox as required by [Title IV, Canon 9].” This failure was not a “technical issue that could be waived,” but was an “important procedural protection that is integral” to the use of the canon. Nor did she comply with the requirement that the bishop be given timely notice of the legal proceedings, as the Presiding Bishop withheld notice for seven months.

By not inhibiting Bishop Cox during the two-month period she gave him for denying the charges, the Presiding Bishop was also creating “new procedures” for deposing bishops. The 60-day notice to deny the charges applies only to an “inhibited bishop,” according to the memorandum. Bishop Jefferts Schori had made the same error in her treatment of Bishop Duncan, the document noted.

Bringing Bishop Cox before the House of Bishops without securing his inhibition first also violated Title IV, Canon 9, Section 2, the memorandum said, as “a bishop who has not been inhibited is not ‘liable to deposition’ under this canon.”

To suggest that the provision of Section 2 of the Canon: “Otherwise, it shall be the duty of the Presiding Bishop to present the matter to the House of Bishops at the next regular, or special meeting of the House,” was “nonsensical,” the paper argued for “if the ‘Otherwise’ sentence deals with uninhibited bishops such as Bishop Cox (and Duncan), there is no provision under which the Presiding Bishop is authorized to depose an inhibited bishop such as Bishop Schofield. No rule of legal interpretation permits such a nonsensical result.”

The Presiding Bishop’s deposition of Bishops Cox and Schofield was done without the “necessary consent” of the House of Bishops. “The conclusion that the requisite consent was not given is irrefutable” as the “plain meaning” of the words of the canon, as well as voting procedures detailed in other parts of the Constitution and Canons do not permit the interpretation interposed by the Presiding Bishop’s chancellor, the paper said

Concerning the Diocese of San Joaquin, the Presiding Bishop’s announcement that she did not recognize the “duly elected” diocesan standing committee violated Articles IV and II.3 of the church’s constitution and repudiated her duties under [Title I, Canon 2, Section 4(a)(3)] which permits her only to “consult” with the diocesan ecclesiastical authority in the event of an episcopal vacancy.

The appointment of “representatives and vicars” to act in San Joaquin violated Article II.3 of the church’s constitution, the document stated, while the convening of a special convention in San Joaquin and installation of Bishop Jerry Lamb as the provisional bishop violated Article II.3 and Title III, Canon 13.

“The violations with respect to Bishops Cox and Duncan, although willful and repeated, pertained primarily to individual bishops. The violations with respect to [San Joaquin] however, subvert the governance of an entire diocese and go to the heart of TEC’s polity as a ‘fellowship of duly constituted dioceses’ governed under Article II.3 by bishops who are not under a metropolitan or archbishop,” the legal memorandum concluded.

The procedural difficulties in bringing this matter to adjudication were formidable, the paper argued, as the “ability of the complainants to hold accountable the Presiding Bishop or another bishop thus ends at the [Title IV] Review Committee.”

The authors of the legal memorandum were not optimistic the current legal and political environment within the church would be conducive for a conviction. The Title IV committee could issue a presentment, it could decline to issue a presentment and “produce a rationale that is persuasive to most objective observers,” or it could “decline to issue a presentment on grounds that are not persuasive and serve only to discredit the Review Committee and the process as well as the respondent,” it said.

This third outcome is “highly likely,” the paper concluded, but it noted the effort should nonetheless be made to hold the institution “accountable.”

Canadian theologian James I Packer and eight other evangelical clergymen have issued a statement affirming they have not abandoned the Anglican Communion by seceding from the Diocese of New Westminster and the oversight of Bishop Michael Ingham.

Writing in response to Bishop Ingham’s “Notice of Presumption of Abandonment of the Exercise of the Ministry” the nine priests and deacons on April 21 said they it was their “intention to remain members of the Anglican Church,” but under the jurisdiction of a different Province of the Communion.

In February Bishop Ingham served notice on the six clergy after their congregations voted to quit the Anglican Church of Canada and affiliate with the Anglican Network in Canada under the jurisdiction of Presiding Bishop Gregory Venables of the Southern Cone.

The six wrote that Bishop Ingham’s Notice had failed to affect their status on moral, canonical and legal grounds. The Notice was insufficient under Canadian canon law, they explained as it did not enumerate the grounds for their alleged abandonment. However, they acknowledged that they had quit the Anglican Church of Canada as it, and Bishop Ingham had “departed from historic orthodox Anglican teaching and practice in defiance of the Lambeth Conference, the Windsor Report and the Primates of the global Anglican Communion.”

In order to be faithful to their “ordination vows, we must leave your jurisdiction, and by this letter, we hereby relinquish the licences we hold from the Bishop of New Westminster. Each of us will receive a licence to continue our present parish ministries from Bishop Donald Harvey, who, as you know, is under the jurisdiction of the Primate of the Southern Cone. In this way, we will be able to continue our Anglican ministry within the Anglican Church, under the jurisdiction of and in communion with those who remain faithful to historic, orthodox Anglicanism and as part of the Anglican Communion worldwide,” they said.

The conservative clergymen’s response to Bishop Ingham, came the same day as a protest from Bishop Ingham and Canadian Archbishop Fred Hiltz over a scheduled visit by Bishop Venables to the breakaway congregations on April 25-26.

“Your visit to Canada is without any reference to or consent from my office or that of the bishop of the diocese of New Westminster. This represents a breach in what is considered normative in protocol among primates and bishops throughout the Communion,” Archbishop Hiltz wrote.

Bishop Venables noted Archbishop Hiltz’s request to “stop interfering in the life of this province” was not germane as the congregations were not members of the Anglican Church of Canada.

An American state court has handed the Episcopal Church a major defeat in its battle for control of the property of breakaway congregations in Virginia, rejecting its argument that there was no “division” in the Episcopal Church.

In an 88 page opinion released on April 3, Fairfax County Judge Randy Bellows held that a Nineteenth century law governing the disposition of church property in the event of a church schism applied to the dispute between the Diocese of Virginia and CANA—the American jurisdiction of the Church of Nigeria.

The Episcopal Church and Diocese of Virginia last year brought suit against 11 congregations of the Anglican District of Virginia seeking control of the breakaway parish properties, including the diocese’s two largest congregations—Truro Parish and the Falls Church in suburban Washington.

Judge Bellows rejected the Episcopal Church’s contention that the CANA secessions were a local matter. He held “it blinks at reality to characterize the ongoing division within the diocese, [the Episcopal Church], and the Anglican Communion as anything but a division of the first magnitude.”

“The rapidity with which [The Episcopal Church's] problems became that of the Anglican Communion, and the consequent impact-in some cases the extraordinary impact-on its provinces around the world,” he said.

The Episcopal Church and the Diocese have challenged the legality of the law, saying it violates Federal constitutional guarantees separating Church and State. A hearing before Judge Bellows is scheduled for May 28 on this issue. Virginia’s Attorney General has announced he will defend the legality of the statute against the Episcopal Church’s claims. The third phase of the litigation—disposition of the property—will be addressed later this year.

While the trial court’s ruling on the applicability of the relevant law does not rule out the Episcopal Church eventually prevailing in the fight, the April 3 ruling comes as a blow to the Church’s plans to use civil courts to enforce the interpretation of Church canons by the Presiding Bishop.

The Virginia law “plainly deprives the Episcopal Church and the Diocese, as well as all hierarchical churches, of their historic constitutional rights to structure their polity free from governmental interference and thus violates the First Amendment and cannot be enforced,” US Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori said on April 4.

The Diocese of Virginia objected to the ruling as well arguing that the “people in the CANA congregations were free to leave, but they cannot take Episcopal property with them.”

A spokesman for the parishes lauded the judge’s decision that upheld its contention that “”our churches’ own trustees hold title for the benefit of the congregations.”

CANA Bishop Martyn Minns said he was confident they would prevail. “There will be another hearing on the constitutional issues that have been raised and I am sure that there will be a variety of appeals but we are confident of the rightness of the path that we have chosen and grateful to God for his favor,” he said.

A Canadian Court has issued an injunction barring the Bishop of British Columbia from seizing the parish property of a breakaway congregation.

On the evening of Friday, April 4, Bishop James Cowan and a party from the diocese changed the locks and installed an alarm system at the parish of St Mary of the Incarnation in Victoria, forbidding use of the property to secessionists who had voted en masse in February to quit the Canadian church for the Anglican Network in Canada (ANiC)—a traditionalist group backed by the Province of the Southern Cone.

At a press conference the follow day, Bishop Cowan said the diocese had “asserted” its “ownership of the property.” While the “blessing of same-sex unions is a presenting issue” dividing traditionalists from the hierarchy of the Canadian church, Bishop Cowan said, the dispute had “far more to do with authority, the interpretation of scripture, what it is to be communal as a church.”

St Mary’s clergy, the Ven. Sharon Hayton and the Rev. Andrew Hewlett, had “relinquished the exercise of ministry in the Anglican Church of Canada,” the bishop said, and announced that he would lead services at the parish on April 6.

However, late that afternoon British Columbia Supreme Court Justice Jon Sigurdson ordered Bishop Cowan to give the breakaway congregation unfettered access to its church.

The bishop’s decision to take physical possession of the church came as a surprise, the parish said. A statement posted on the diocese’s website noted the diocese had “agreed to the continued use of the building” by the congregation “pending further discussions” mediated by Archbishop Terry Buckle of the Yukon, the metropolitan of the province of British Columbia.

“The congregation was hopeful these discussions would avoid the need for court proceedings, so the diocese’s actions came as a complete surprise,” a parish spokesman said.

Bishop Cowan countered that the mediation meeting with Archbishop Buckle had taken place on March 15, and “no other meetings have been suggested, or arranged” and that the parish “was on notice that the Diocese could act at any time.”

He charged the Court had been “misdirected by the Counsel” for the congregation, but said he will abide by the order.

“We are very grateful that the people of St Mary will be able to worship in their building again this Sunday,” said ANiC director Cheryl Chang. “There are serious legal issues as to the ownership of these properties and we have asked the courts to preserve the status quo in the parishes while these bigger issues are being determined,” she said.

The actor Charlton Heston died on April 6 at his home in Beverly Hills from complications of Alzheimer’s disease, his family has announced. He was 83.

A staple of Hollywood films for decades, Heston won an Oscar for his portrayal of Ben-Hur and was also active in American political and social life, marching with Dr. Martin Luther King in the early 1960’s in support of civil rights, and later serving as president and spokesman for the National Rifle Association and the Screen Actors Guild.

“I have played three presidents, three saints and two geniuses in my career,” Heston once quipped. “If that doesn’t create an ego problem, nothing does.”

A statement released by his family said: “Charlton Heston was seen by the world as larger than life. He was known for his chiseled jaw, broad shoulders and resonating voice, and, of course, for the roles he played. No one could ask for a fuller life than his. No man could have given more to his family, to his profession and to his country.”

In 2002 he announced he was suffering from Alzheimer’s disease. “I must reconcile courage and surrender in equal measure,” he said at the time.

A professed Christian, Heston’s portrayal of Ben Hur, Moses, John the Baptist, Michelangelo, General Gordon and El Cid established him as one of the finest actors of his era. Heston’s performances in Ben Hur and The Ten Commandments are regularly broadcast around Christmas and Easter and have formed much of their understanding of Old Testament history.

Heston also served as president of the Episcopal Actors Guild from 1971-1974. A New York charitable society that supports stage actors, the Episcopal Actors Guild was founded in 1923, doubling as a social and artistic center for its members while supporting performers in distressed circumstances.

The Guild’s first president was George Arliss and its membership has included stage and screen actors ranging from Ethel Barrymore to Fred Astaire, Laurence Olivier to Boris Karloff, Jack Benny to Sid Caesar.

Located at the Church of the Transfiguration in New York City, the Guild’s current advisory board includes the bishops of New York and actors Charles Durning, Elizabeth Franz, Rosemary Harris, Celeste Holm, Timothy Hutton, Earle Hyman, Swoosie Kurtz, Angela Lansbury, Cliff Robertson, Campbell Scott, Marian Seldes, Jean Stapleton, Frances Sternhagen and Richard Thomas.

Over the past ten years, the Guild has dispersed over £500,000 in assistance grants to struggling actors, allowing them to continue their careers in the face of financial need.

American Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori has written to the leaders of the US Senate urging them to adopt legislation that would address the problems of global warming.

“Climate change and global warming are real, and caused in significant part by human activities,” Bishop Schori wrote on March 31, endorsing Senate Bill 2191, America’s Climate Security Act, which she called “a strong step forward in achieving carbon emission reductions.”

Bishop Schori said this bill “includes measures aimed at addressing the needs of the world’s most vulnerable: those, who for demographic reasons such as health or location are most susceptible to the effects of climate change, and those living in poverty at home and around the world.”

America “historically the world’s largest greenhouse gas emitter, has a responsibility to lead the way in addressing the impact of climate change,” she said.

The US Church’s General Convention has backed calls to combat global warming which “threatens the future of God’s good creation.” In June 2007, the Presiding Bishop testified before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee stating global warming was “one of the great human and spiritual challenges of our time.”

America’s religious leaders are divided over the moral and scientific claims of global warming theorists, with many evangelical leaders arguing global warming is bad science and the government regulations proposed to fix the crisis would serve only to further impoverish the world’s poor.

Whether Bishop Schori’s words will move the Senate to act is unknown, as political positions on global warming in the US have hardened in recent years, and the on-going divisions within the American Episcopal Church have muted its public voice.

Bishop Schori argued in her March 31 letter “Climate change is a threat not only to God’s good creation but to all of humanity.”

US Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori has overseen the creation of a new Diocese of San Joaquin—one of three ecclesial entities bearing that name and active in Central California.

At a special convention called by the Presiding Bishop held on March 28-29, a rump group of the diocese unanimously elected the former Bishop of Northern California, the Rt. Rev. Jerry Lamb to serve as interim bishop of the diocese, and repudiated the December vote to affiliate with the Province of the Southern Cone.

Delegates from 18 congregations met from March 28-29 at St. John the Baptist Church in Lodi, California. However, no delegates from a majority of diocese’s congregations were present at the meeting, nor were more than a quarter of the eligible clergy present.

Delegates to the convention were required to take an oath of conformity before being seated. Of the 18 congregations present, five were parishes of the Diocese of San Joaquin, three were aided missions, and the rest groups representing minorities in parishes that had voted to quit the Episcopal Church.

Clergy and lay delegates from one parish, St. John’s in Tulare objected to the legality of the convention, while its rector protested the Presiding Bishop’s usurpation of the authority of the standing committee in calling a convention, noting she had no right under canon law to proceed.

Critics of the meeting noted the special convention’s actions were of dubious legality, as a quorum of clergy and congregations were not present, and the requirement that 30 days notice of the convening of synod was ignored by the Presiding Bishop. However, delegates passed a resolution absolving itself of any canonical irregularities in the calling and convening of the meeting.

In a question and answer session, Bishop Lamb said the new Diocese of San Joaquin would move forward with the ordination of women, noting that it had received three women priests at the March 29 meeting—San Joaquin had been one of three US dioceses that would not license women priests. However, it would not move as quickly in other disputed areas. “I think the diocese needs to spend time in conversation before it decides where gay and lesbian people will be in this diocese in the future,” Bishop Lamb said.

The formation of an ecclesial body swearing its fealty to the Presiding Bishop in San Joaquin creates a third Diocese of San Joaquin, critics note. In addition to the new diocese, the Anglican Diocese of San Joaquin under the Province of the Southern Cone is extant, as is the Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin under the ecclesiastical authority of its Standing Committee.

The failure of the House of Bishops to properly depose Bishop Schofield further complicates affairs. Bishop Schori declined to discuss her legal strategy, but noted the new diocese would act quickly to attempt to gain control of the property of all of the Dioceses of San Joaquin.

Published in The Church of England Newspaper’s Religious Intelligence section.

Lawyers for the octogenarian bishop deposed by the American Church have written to Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori charging her with defaming their client.

Questions over the legality of the March 12 proceedings have riled the American Church since the legality of the decision to depose Bishop John-David Schofield of San Joaquin and retired Bishop William Cox was questioned by The Church of England Newspaper and the Living Church.

On March 27 the Diocese of South Carolina issued a formal protest to the “failure to follow the Canons” and asked Bishop Schori to “revisit those decisions”, “refrain” from appointing a new bishop for San Joaquin and to “make every effort to follow our Church Canons in all future House of Bishops decisions.”

“Because we feel so strongly that the Canons were not followed in the depositions of Bishops Schofield and Cox, we must respectfully refuse to recognize the depositions, and we will not recognize any new bishop who may be elected to replace Bishop Schofield, unless and until the canons are followed,” South Carolina said.

The Bishop of Central Florida last week called for a review of the decision, raising the matter with Bishop Clifton Daniels III of East Carolina, the president of the church’s court of review for the trial of a bishop. Though Bishop Daniels declined to respond to a query from the CEN, he is understood to have agreed to look into the matter.

R. Wicks Stephens, the chancellor of the Anglican Communion Network and attorney for Bishop Cox wrote to Bishop Schori and her lawyer David Booth Beers on March 27 stating “your purported deposition of Bishop Cox is unsupported by the canonically required consent of a majority of the whole number of Bishops entitled to vote on the proposed deposition of Bishop Cox which was presented to the House of Bishops at its last meeting. Accordingly, the deposition of Bishop Cox was not consented to as required, and your pronouncement of his deposition as a Bishop is without effect and void.”

He lambasted Mr. Beers’ argument that his “reading” of the canons required “merely the consent of a majority of those Bishops present in the House” to depose the two bishops, citing the text of the constitution and canons to support this reading.

“While assuredly your Chancellor has the right to offer interpretations of the canons when ambiguity so requires, nothing justifies a reading” of the canons “that is directly contrary to that canon’s plain language and meaning,” Mr. Stephens said, demanding that “you right the wrong by which you have defamed Bishop Cox by immediately withdrawing your pronouncement of deposition.”

The Rt. Rev. Robert W Duncan

The Rt. Rev. Keith L. Ackerman, SSC

The Rt. Rev. William Wantland

The Bishop of Pittsburgh has denied accusations that he has “abandoned the Communion” of the Episcopal Church.

In a March 14 letter to US Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori, Bishop Robert Duncan pledged his fealty to the doctrine, discipline and liturgy of the Episcopal Church.

“I have kept my ordination vows - all of them - to the best of my ability, including the vow I made on 28 October 1972 to ‘banish and drive away all strange and erroneous doctrines contrary to God’s Word’,” he stated.

He had been “present to all but two meetings of the House of Bishops (out of 24) during the last 12 years. In those meetings I have clearly and openly opposed the theological and moral drift of The Episcopal Church, often in the face of great hostility and sadly, at times, derision,” Bishop Duncan wrote.

On Jan 15, Bishop Schori said she would bring move to depose Bishop Duncan at the September House of Bishops Meeting unless he provided a statement and evidence proving his innocence of the charges.

Bishop Schori told a press conference on March 12 that she would distribute copies of the investigation into Bishop Duncan’s alleged “abandonment of Communion” with an eye towards convening a special meeting to depose him from office before the next House of Bishops meeting in September.

Writing to Bishop Schori’s attorney, David Booth Beers, Bishop Duncan’s attorney said his client’s statement had resolved the issue “and we expect that there will be no further action with respect to the certification enclosed with the letter from the Presiding Bishop.”

Should Bishop Schori proceed against Bishop Duncan, his attorney said they would demand a full hearing before any vote was taken. The canons require the Bishops to “investigate the matter,” attorney John Lewis wrote. “That provision, together with fundamental due process, requires that Bishop Duncan (or his representative) be given a hearing by the House of Bishops, including the right to present evidence and witnesses.”

Under the terms of the abandonment canon, a majority of all bishops eligible to vote must consent to a deposition. As of March 25, 147 votes would be required to remove Bishop Duncan from office.

Two retired American bishops have called upon the national church in New York to disclose the amount of money the Episcopal Church is spending on litigation with breakaway congregations.

The call for financial accountability from retired Bishops Williams Wantland of Eau Claire, Wisconsin and Bishop Maurice Benitez of Texas comes amidst tightening finances for the Episcopal Church, which has also announced it would no longer pay the stipends of overseas missionaries.

On March 7, the Episcopal Church’s mission personnel officer announced that missionaries sponsored by the national church would no longer receive stipends or reimbursement for travel expenses.

Lay missionaries would now receive the same pension benefits as ordained missionaries. However, this rise in costs plus increased health and conference fees coupled with a “reduction in our overall budget of 5 percent in 2008 due to budget constraints” had forced the church to cut off missionary stipends.

The cuts will take immediate effect for new missionaries, while those on current assignment will see the change when their “Letters of Understanding” are renewed.

The suspension of the stipendiary missionary programme follows a Feb 29 open letter from the two retired bishops seeking an accounting for the estimated several million dollars spent on litigation by the national church offices. The two bishops wrote their latest request was their third attempt to get an answer.

The first answer the bishops received, they said, was that the money spent on lawyers to fight the church’s property battles was “a secret.” A second request elicited the response that “no funds for litigation have come from either the Pension Fund or Trust Funds. However, [the national church] refused to disclose the amounts being expended on litigation.”

In their Feb 29 letter, the bishops stated the national church had no legal right to withhold financial information. Saying “it’s a secret” was “not acceptable. If there is nothing wrong with these expenditures, then why do you refuse to reveal the amount?” Bishops Wantland and Benitez asked.

An Ontario court declined to lift an order granting temporary control of church properties to three breakaway congregations that have left the Anglican Church of Canada for the Province of the Southern Cone.

On March 20, Justice Jane Milanetti let stand a Feb 29 order denying a request from the Diocese of Niagara for immediate possession of St. Hilda’s, St. George’s and Good Shepherd Anglican Churches. The three Ontario churches were part of a group of parishes across Canada that last month defected to the Anglican Network in Canada under the metropolitan authority of Bishop Gregory Venables of Argentina.

Following a full day of testimony and oral argument, Justice Milanetti said she would reserve her decision on the diocese’s custody petition until a later date.

“We are very thankful that we are able to maintain our ministries in the buildings through Easter as there was much uncertainty. We look forward to continued worship there as long as the courts permit us to do so.” said Canon Charlie Masters, rector of St George’s.

“We deeply regret that it was necessary to defend the right of these congregations to maintain their ministries in the buildings where they have always worshipped,” said Cheryl Chang, a director of the Anglican Network in Canada. “It is our hope and prayer that we could resolve all issues through amicable discussions but at this point, we are at the mercy of the courts and we await this decision.”

Attorneys for the diocese have argued that under Canadian canon law, parishes are creatures of the diocese, and have no existence independent of their bishop. The parishes have countered the diocese’s claim, saying the Canadian Church’s deviation from traditional moral teachings had abrogated any trust it may have held over the parishes.

A full adjudication of the ownership of the parish properties is likely to take several years.

A spectrum of theological belief and social concerns at work within the Anglican Communion were on display in Holy Week and Easter sermons and pastoral letters this past week.

Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori went Green for Easter asking American Episcopalians to consider the cost of their affluence. “We cannot love our neighbors unless we care for the creation that supports all our earthly lives,” she said and could not respect “the dignity of our fellow creatures if our sewage or garbage fouls their living space.”

“When atmospheric warming, due in part to the methane output of the millions of cows we raise each year to produce hamburger, begins to slowly drown the island homes of our neighbors in the South Pacific, are we truly sharing good news?” the presiding bishop wrote in an Easter message to the church.

New Zealand’s archbishops called Christians to see Easter as the celebration of love over death. Easter was the unique event in world history where the “final suffering of the Son of God reveal how deep God’s empathy is for the world, and how far divine love will go to redeem the pain and sin of the world. Evil manifested in so many forms - political, religious, psychological, and spiritual - poured itself out completely in this event.”

“And the Easter miracle is this - these murderous forces exhausted themselves without finally exhausting the faith, hope, and love of God,” Archbishops Brown Turei, David Moxon and Jabez Bryce wrote. “The resurrection,” they said “is the place in human history where evil, injustice, and prejudice are transfigured into justice, goodness, and enlightenment.”

The Dean of Perth urged Anglicans to rid themselves of outmoded notions of Easter. “The Resurrection of Jesus ought not to be seen in physical terms, but as a new spiritual reality,” the Very Rev. John Shepherd said, noting it was “important for Christians to be set free from the idea that the Resurrection was an extraordinary physical event which restored to life Jesus’ original earthly body.”

The resurrection was a spiritual event for the disciples and not “historical records as we understand them. They are symbolic images of the breaking through of the resurrection spirit into human lives,” Dean Shepherd said.

The Archbishop of Sydney used his Easter message to warn Christians against false teaching and the occult. The popular fascination with ghosts reprented “the longing of the human heart for an existence beyond the grave,” Dr. Peter Jensen said.

Yet Christians believed death was not the end. “When you trust in Jesus Christ, you are trusting the one person who can take you through the greatest calamity of life and bring you safe to the other side. Christians don’t try to contact their dead because we know that they are with Jesus and we will join them as whole people - in fact those who belong to Jesus will be transformed people,” Dr. Jensen said as it “shows you that new beginnings are possible.”

The president of the Council of Anglican Provinces of Africa (CAPA), Archbishop Ian Ernest of the Indian Ocean, wrote he hoped the Paschal season “will instill in us an urge to seek transformation and thus empower us to work towards the making up of a society based on gospel values.”

“By his precious death and glorious resurrection, Jesus has reconciled the world to his Father. It is therefore imperative for CAPA to emerge as a reconciling body in Christ,” he said, and “facilitate conversations and dialogue in the midst of conflicts” that continue to plague Africa.

 Published in The Church of England Newspaper

US Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori failed to follow the procedural rules governing the trial of Bishop William Cox for “abandonment of the Communion” of the Episcopal Church an investigation by The Church of England Newspaper has found.

In a March 12 press conference, Bishop Schori stated she had not followed rules governing the requirement that the 88-year old retired bishop be granted a speedy trial, that he be informed of the charges against him in a timely fashion, and that the consent of the church’s senior bishops be solicited by the Presiding Bishop to suspend him from office pending trial. A subsequent investigation by CEN in conjunction with The Living Church magazine revealed an insufficient number of votes to convict were cast also.

The Bishop of Central Florida has called for a review of the proceedings, and the president of the church’s appellate court of review for the trial of bishops is understood to have agreed to look into the proceedings.

Elected suffragan bishop of Maryland in 1972, Bishop Cox was translated to Oklahoma in 1980 as assistant bishop and retired in 1988. In June 2005, Bishop Cox performed ordinations at Christ Church, Overland Park, Kansas on behalf of Archbishop Henry Orombi of Uganda. Earlier that year Christ Church negotiated an amicable parting of the ways with the diocese of Kansas and had joined the Ugandan Church. Bishop Cox returned the following month to Overland Park to perform confirmations on behalf of Archbishop Orombi.

The bishops of Kansas and Oklahoma filed a complaint against Bishop Cox for performing Episcopal acts without the permission of the local diocesan bishop. In March 2006 the Church’s Title IV review committee found there was sufficient evidence to bring Bishop Cox to trial, however, Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold declined to prosecute.

Following the 2006 election of Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori as Presiding Bishop the charges were resubmitted. Bishop Cox, then 87 years of age, declined to contest the matter telling his attorney he was too old to fight, and by letter resigned his membership in the House of Bishops on March 28, 2007.

In his letter of resignation Bishop Cox said that although he was resigning his membership in the House of Bishops and was not resigning his orders and would be joining the Province of the Southern Cone and would continue his episcopal ministry in that branch of the Communion.

Bishop Schori forwarded the letter to the Title IV review committee asking it to determine whether by this letter, Bishop Cox had “abandoned the communion” of the Episcopal Church.

On May 29, 2007 the Title IV review committee issued its certificate and report under Title IV Canon 9 that Bishop Cox had “abandoned the communion.” On Jan 8, 2008 she informed Bishop Cox that he had been determined to have abandoned the communion of this church. She gave him 60 days to recant, or else he would be brought before the next house of bishops meeting and be deposed. Offering no defence, Bishop Cox was deposed on a voice vote of bishops attending the final day of the meeting.

The procedures laid out in Title IV, Canon 9, sections 1 and 2 (the abandonment canon) to depose a bishop state that after the Title IV review committee issues a certificate of abandonment the Presiding Bishop “shall” “forthwith” notify the accused. The Presiding Bishop then “shall” seek the consent of the three senior bishops with jurisdiction to inhibit the accused bishop, and trial “shall” take place at the “next” meeting of the House of Bishops.

At a March 12 press conference Bishop Schori outlined the procedural history surrounding the Cox case. She said the Title IV review committee had “certified [Bishop Cox] several years ago. … before her time.” She added, however, that “it was never brought to the House of Bishops for action.”

She then said she “did not send it to the three senior bishops” and the House of Bishops “did not consider it in September” at their meeting in New Orleans with the Archbishop of Canterbury due to the “the press of other business.”

Several minutes later, Bishop Schori said she wanted to “clarify” her earlier statements. She said she had been “unable to get the consent of the three senior bishops last spring. That’s why we didn’t bring it to the September meeting” of the House of Bishops.

Contacted after the press conference, one of the three senior bishops, who declined to be named, stated he had never been asked by Bishop Schori to consent to Bishop Cox’s supension.

The Presiding Bishop’s Chancellor, Mr. David Booth Beers, declined to address the issues surrounding Bishop Cox’s case in a March 15 statement released through the Episcopal Church’s press office. However, he stated that his “position” was that there had been a legal quorum to depose the two bishops on March 12.

Canon lawyer, retired Bishop William Wantland of Eau Claire told CEN the deposition of Bishop Cox was “void” for failing to achieve the required “majority vote of all bishops entitled to vote” and because the “canonical procedure was simply not followed.”

In defence of the proceedings against Bishop Cox, Indianapolis Bishop Catherine Waynick wrote that while the “canons may need to be clarified, what does not seem to need clarifying” was that “William Cox willfully violated the canons by functioning where he had been specifically asked not to.”

However, the charge brought against Bishop Cox was not violating diocesan boundaries. In 2006 Bishop Griswold dropped the charges proffered against Bishop Cox for the Kansas ordination, raising the question whether the bishops convicted him of a crime not before the bishops for adjudication.

The charge was “Abandonment of Communion,” Bishop Wantland said. The punishment for violation of diocesan boundaries “is a totally different charge. In my opinion, this is what he should have been charged with, and the procedure under Canon IV. 9. 2 was totally inappropriate and without any justification,” he said.

On March 15, Central Florida Bishop John W. Howe urged the Episcopal Church’s three senior bishops to review the case, saying he was under “no illusions that the outcome of the despicable vote to depose John-David [Schofield] and William [Cox] will be reversed, but at least we might want to obey the canons.”

On Maundy Thursday, Bishop Howe repeated his call for justice to those falsely condemned, noting “I recall that another person of influence washed his hands of a difficult matter on this same weekend some years ago.”

The Episcopal Church’s three most liberal seminaries have announced they will shut their doors or reorganize due to declining enrollments and straightened financial circumstances.

On Feb 20 the dean of Seabury-Western Theological Seminary in Evanston, Illinois announced it would “suspend recruitment and admissions to all degree and certificate programs.” Bexley Hall announced on Feb 22 it was closing its Rochester, New York campus and would consolidate operations at shared facilities in Colombus, Ohio, while last week the Dean of Episcopal Divinity School in Cambridge, Massachusetts announced his resignation after the school voted to sell a portion of its campus to a teacher’s college.

Established in 1824 in Ohio, Bexley Hall moved to Rochester, New York in 1968 and joined a consortium with the Colgate Rochester Baptist seminary. In 2000 the school transferred its offices to the campus of the Trinity Lutheran Seminary of Columbus, Ohio, and turned the Rochester campus into a satellite facility.

However, of the Rochester campus’ 13 students, 11 will complete their studies this year. “We are too thin on the ground” the Very Rev. John Kevern told The Living Church magazine. The school will maintain its Columbus campus, which has a current enrollment of 20 students

In his Feb 20 letter announcing the closure of the school, the Dean of Seabury-Western, the Very Rev. Gary Hall stated the Episcopal Church “does not need Seabury in its present form.”

The seminary board voted to begin a period of “discernment” to chart the school’s future. The school’s 50 students in training for the ordained ministry will be assisted in finding suitable places in other seminaries, the statement said.

The decision to close was determined by economic factors as the school had operated on a deficit for almost 20 years. “The stand-alone residential model developed in the nineteenth century is becoming unsustainable for most of our institutions,” as “fewer resources” are available to train students, while costs inexorably rise, the dean’s statement said.

On March 6, Episcopal Divinity School announced it was selling 7 if its 13 buildings on its 8-acre campus near Harvard Square in Cambridge to Lesley University for £16.75 million. The teacher’s college and divinity school will share the library while Lesley will own the residence halls and dining hall and a condominium association will be created to govern the campus. The divinity school’s 97 students will not be affected by the property sale.

Slumping enrollments and a declining financial fortunes prompted the sale, though a spokesman for the school said the dean’s resignation had been planned prior to the sale.

Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori is gauging her strength among the members of the US House of Bishops to see if she has sufficient political capital to depose traditionalist Bishop Robert Duncan of Pittsburgh before the July Lambeth Conference.

Bishop Schori’s admission came in the same week as word of new litigation against a retired conservative bishop was announced. The former Bishop of Quincy, 80-year old Edward MacBurney (pictured) is charged with violating the church’s canons by visiting a non-Episcopal church in the diocese of San Diego without the permission of the local Episcopal bishop.

Speaking at a March 12 press conference following the House of Bishops’ trial of Bishops John-David Schofield and William Cox for “abandonment of communion” of the Episcopal Church, Bishop Schori said she would now move against Bishop Duncan and distribute copies of the investigation into Bishop Duncan’s statments to the bishops. This would allow her to gauge the mood of the house for a trial as early as May for the conservative leader.

The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reported on March 15 that Bishop Schori’s lawyer, David Booth Beers sent an email to a number of Pittsburgh church leaders last week explaining the decision. Bishop Schori would “poll the House of Bishops in April to see when the House would next like to meet to discuss, among other things, the certification respecting Bishop Duncan. It is not accurate to say that she is seeking approval to proceed; rather, she seeks the mind of the House as to when to proceed,” he said.

Whether Bishop Schori will be able to rid herself of Bishop Duncan is unclear. The House of Bishop’s failure to conform to its own rules in the trials of Bishop Schofield and Cox, and the reports of wide spread and consistent violations of the Bishop Cox’s right of fair play and due process under the canons by Bishop Schori, strengthens Bishop Duncan’s hand. Under the constitution and canons of the Episcopal Church, 148 votes are needed to depose a bishop for abandonment of communion.

Only 68 active bishops were present at the trial of Bishops Schofield and Cox, as were a further 25 or so retired bishops. To successfully depose Bishop Duncan, Bishop Schori must find a further 50 bishops to get Bishop Duncan..

Bishop MacBurney, however, has not been charged with abandonment of communion at this stage of the ecclesiastical proceedings, but merely with canonical violations. In a statement released by the Diocese of Quincy, his lawyers noted the novelty of the charges against their client as to “whether an Episcopal bishop exercises total control over a certain geographical territory or whether a Bishop merely exercises control over the Episcopal churches within that territory.”

The current Bishop of Quincy, the Rt. Rev. Keith Ackerman has given his full backing to Bishop MacBurney, saying his actions had been done in “good faith” and were motivated by the claims of conscience. Forward in Faith called the charges “pastorally and politically inept.”

The attack on Bishop MacBurney “will alienate others across the Communion who have not yet grasped the extent of the graceless and totalitarian mindset which now dominates the Episcopal Church,” it said on March 14.

The Episcopal Church’s House of Bishops has deposed the Bishop of San Joaquin and the retired suffragan Bishop of Maryland for “abandonment of the Communion” of the Episcopal Church following a closed trial in Texas on March 12.  However, a joint investigation by The Church of England Newspaper and The Living Church magazine has revealed procedural and legal inconsistencies that may render the vote a nullity.

The ecclesiastical trial of Bishop John-David Schofield was a necessary part of the Episcopal Church’s legal strategy to secure the property of the Diocese of San Joaquin, US Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori said on March 12.  However, the flawed trial has created a legal anomaly leaving Bishop Schofield in place as Episcopal bishop of San Joaquin, when neither he, nor Bishop Schori, want him to hold that post.

“The current public dispute over the canonical legality of the Episcopal Church’s House of Bishops’ recent vote to depose Bishops Schofield and Cox amounts at best to a severe embarrassment to the Presiding Bishop, her advisors, and the House itself;  at worst, it exposes a travesty of Christian justice and prudence,” the Anglican Communion Institute noted.

“The result of this dispute and the failures of good order leading up to it will inevitably be the further erosion of [the Episcopal Church's] standing in the public’s eye and in the Communion’s councils,” it said.

Bishop Schofield was consecrated Bishop of San Joaquin in 1989. Last December, he presided over a diocesan convention at which clergy and lay delegates voted overwhelmingly to leave the Episcopal Church and affiliate with the Anglican Church of the Southern Cone.  For this action Bishop Schofield was found by a review committee to have abandoned the communion of the Episcopal Church, and was suspended from office pending a trial.

Title IV, Canon 9 section 2 of the Episcopal Church’s Constitution and Canons requires that the House of Bishops “by a majority of the whole number of Bishops entitled to vote” must give its consent to depose a bishop under the abandonment of communion canon.

Eligible voters are defined as both active and retired bishops.  Of the 294 bishops eligible to vote, less than a third were present for the trial.  To lawfully depose Bishop Schofield, 148 votes would have to have been cast in favor of deposition.

As of breakfast on the last day of the House of Bishop’s March 7-12 meeting, 115 active and retired bishops were present.  However, by the start of the trial only 68 active bishops answered the roll call, as did an undisclosed number of retired bishops.

The two hour trial in absentia began with a reading of the charges, followed by prayers from the chaplain.  The bishops then broke apart into small groups and then gathered in a plenary session for debate.

A voice vote was held, first for Bishop Schofield and then for Bishop Cox, and both were declared to have been deposed.  Questioned about the canonical inconsistencies at a post-meeting press conference, North Carolina Bishop Michael Curry defended the proceedings but admitted that there had been no discussion of its legality.  “We have acted in recommendation to our canonical advisers,” he said.   ”We acted in accordance with the canons.”

During the press conference, Bishop Schori said she had refused to accept Bishop Schofield’s resignation from the House of Bishops because the canons required a sitting diocesan bishop of the Church to receive permission to resign from the House of Bishops.  His letter of resignation was flawed, she said.  “He resigned his membership in the House of Bishops, not his status as a bishop with jurisdiction.”

The Episcopal Church had to bring him to trial and to refuse his resignation, as it needed to “clarify the status of the Corporate Sole.  It is inappropriate for him to retain control of it.”

Trusteeship of the property of the Diocese of San Joaquin is vested in the Bishop, under California law, by means of a Corporate Sole-whereby the bishop by virtue of his office is trustee of the property.

Bishop Schori told the press conference that Bishop Schofield following the trial was “outside my sphere of influence.  No longer a member of the House of Bishops.  Not a member of the clergy.  Not my concern.”

However, the revelation that the trial failed to conform to canon law, and by failing to garner enough votes to depose Bishop Schofield, had resulted in his legal acquittal, sparked a firestorm of controversy.

The Presiding Bishop’s lawyer, David Booth Beers released a statement on March 15, stating that his “position” was that the requirement that all bishops eligible to vote could be interpreted to mean all eligible to vote who happened to be present at the meeting.

What steps will now be taken to remedy the situation are unclear as both sides are confused as to how to act.  Bishop Schori has already nominated a new bishop to serve as her designee in San Joaquin—retired Northern California Bishop Jerry Lamb.  However, leading clergy of the diocese who wish to remain within the Episcopal Church have declined to meet with him, citing the failed trial as evidence that Bishop Schofield remains the Episcopal bishop.

On Palm Sunday, Bishop Schofield preached in his cathedral in Fresno—with Bishop Lamb seated in the front row of the congregation.  Greeted with applause, Bishop Schofield defended his decision to affiliate with the Southern Cone as an act of moral necessity.

Bishop Schori had called a special convention of the diocese for March 29 to ratify Bishop Lamb’s appointment as Episcopal bishop.  However, under civil and canon law the failed trial leaves Bishop Schofield as Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin in the US Church, and Bishop of the Anglican Diocese of San Joaquin in the Province of the Southern Cone.

The Rt. Rev. Kenneth Price, Bishop Suffragan of Southern Ohio and secretary of the House of Bishops, said it is his understanding, “based on private conversations held prior to the meeting,” that the number of votes necessary to depose bishops John-David Schofield and William J. Cox was determined prior to the house’s March 12 business session by David Booth Beers, chancellor for the Presiding Bishop, and the Rt. Rev. John Clark Buchanan, House of Bishops’ parliamentarian.

Bishop Price told The Living Church he was not consulted on the number of votes needed for a deposition and he does not recall the resolutions approving the depositions of bishops Schofield and Cox being “singled out” as requiring a higher threshold of consent prior to enactment.

Title 4, canon 9, section 2 states that the vote requires “a majority of the whole number of bishops entitled to vote,” a higher threshold than that necessary to conduct business. There were 116 bishops registered at the meeting at 6 a.m. on March 12. The total number of bishops eligible to vote is 294, according to online sources.

“None of the votes taken were unanimous, each having both negative votes and abstentions,” Bishop Price said.

“However, the affirmative votes were so overwhelming that the Presiding Bishop declared them as having passed and no one challenged her ruling.”

In a statement published by Episcopal News Service, Mr. Beers contended that the vote conformed to the canons. His statement came following publication of an article on The Living Church News Service website on March 14 that raised the issue of whether the house had the canonically necessary number to depose two of its members.

“In consultation with the House of Bishops’ parliamentarian prior to the vote, we both agreed that the canon meant a majority of all those present and entitled to vote, because it is clear from the canon that the vote had to be taken at a meeting, unlike the situation where you poll the whole House of Bishops by mail. Therefore, it is our position that the vote was in order,” he said.

Bishop Price said the House of Bishops had “well in excess” of the minimum 68 bishops needed for a quorum to conduct business. Article I, section 2 of the constitution of The Episcopal Church, which defines a quorum as 50 percent plus one of all bishops “exclusive of bishops who have resigned their jurisdiction or positions.”

Letter from Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori to Bishop Cox dated Jan. 8, 2008.

Title IV review committee report on Bishop Cox dated May 29, 2007. Page 1, Page 2.

Letter from Bishop Cox to Presiding Bishop Jefferts Schori dated March 28, 2007.

Certificate of Deposition of Bishop Cox dated March 12, 2008

The Rt. Rev. William Cox, Assistant Bishop of Oklahoma retired and Acting Provincial Assistant Bishop of the Southern Cone. Unpublished photo taken July 30 at the ACN conference in Fort Worth.

First published in The Living Church.

Slightly more than one-third of all bishops eligible voted to depose  bishops John-David Schofield and William J. Cox during the House of Bishops’ spring retreat, far fewer than the 51 percent required by the canons.

The exact number is impossible to know, because both resolutions were approved by voice vote. Only 131 bishops registered for the meeting March 7-12 at Camp Allen, and at least 15 of them left before the business session began on Wednesday. There were 294 members of the House of Bishops entitled to vote on March 12.

When questioned about canonical inconsistencies during a telephone press conference at the conclusion of the meeting, Bishop Michael Curry of North Carolina said the bishops had relied on advice provided to them by canonical experts, and did not examine canonical procedure during plenary debate prior to the votes to depose bishops Schofield and Cox.

Bishop Schofield was consecrated Bishop of San Joaquin in 1989. Last December, he presided over a diocesan convention at which clergy and lay delegates voted overwhelmingly to leave The Episcopal Church and affiliate with the Anglican Church of the Southern Cone. Bishop Cox was consecrated Bishop Suffragan of Maryland in 1972. He resigned in 1980, later serving as Assisting Bishop of Oklahoma from 1980 to 1988. In 2005, Bishop Cox ordained two priests and a deacon at Christ Church, Overland Park, Kan. Christ Church affiliated with the Anglican Church of Uganda after purchasing its property from the Diocese of Kansas.

Both bishops were charged with abandonment of communion. The procedure for deposing a bishop under this charge is specified in Title IV, canon 9, sections 1-2. The canon stipulates that the vote requires “a majority of the whole number of bishops entitled to vote,” not merely a majority of those present. At least a dozen bishops voted either not to depose Bishop Schofield or to abstain, according to several bishops. The number voting in favor of deposing Bishop Cox was reportedly slightly larger than the number in favor of deposing Bishop Schofield.

Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori was questioned about the history of the canonical proceedings against Bishop Cox. At first she said during the press conference that she had not sought the canonically required consent of the three senior bishops of the church for permission to inhibit Bishop Cox pending his trial. However Title IV, Canon 9, sections 1-2 do not describe a procedure for deposing a bishop who has not first been inhibited.

Consent Never Sought

Later in the press conference, Bishop Jefferts Schori clarified and extended her remarks, saying she had been “unable to get the consent of the three senior bishops last spring. That’s why we didn’t bring it to the September meeting” of the House of Bishops. One of the three senior bishops with jurisdiction confirmed to The Living Church that his consent to inhibit Bishop Cox was never sought.

In 2007, Bishop Cox sent a written letter to Bishop Jefferts Schori, announcing his resignation from the House of Bishops.  Since he was already retired, he did not have jurisdiction, and therefore unlike Bishop Schofield, his resignation did not require consent from a majority of the House of Bishops. A trial of the 88-year-old retired bishop was not mandatory.

Bishop Cox also does not appear to have been granted due process with respect to a speedy trial. Once the disciplinary review committee formally certifies that a bishop has abandoned communion, the canons state “it shall be the duty of the Presiding Bishop to present the matter to the House of Bishops at the next regular or special meeting of the house.” The review committee provided certification to Bishop Jefferts Schori on May 29, 2007. His case should have been heard during the fall meeting in New Orleans last September. When asked about the apparent inconsistency, Bishop Jefferts Schori said initially she did not include Bishop Cox’s case on the agenda for the New Orleans meeting “due to the press of business.”

Title IV, canon 9, section 1 requires the Presiding Bishop to inform the accused bishop “forthwith,” in other words immediately, after the review committee has provided a certificate of abandonment, but Bishop Jefferts Schori did not write to Bishop Cox until Jan. 8, 2008, more than seven months afterward.

The two-hour business session at which the deposition votes were taken ran slightly longer than originally scheduled. First a resolution was read followed by prayer from the chaplain. A period of silence followed the prayer. After the silence was broken, the bishops discussed the resolution in small table groups followed by plenary discussion. When it appeared that everyone who wanted to speak had done so, the voice vote was taken. Each resolution was read and voted on separately.

THE BISHOP of New York has written a pastoral letter to his diocese stating that although his predecessor, the Rt Rev Paul Moore, Jr (pictured), had been revealed to have dishonored his ordination vows in his private life, the bishop’s publics actions remained a source of pride for the Episcopal Church.

Bishop Moore was a “complex man,” Bishop Mark Sisk wrote. While there could be no “excuse for the enormity of the betrayal of personal trust that he perpetrated in his private life, yet similarly there can be no diminution of the greatness, the nobility even, of the purposes and goals of his public life.”

Read it all in The Church of England Newspaper.

US Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori has endorsed a letter prepared by a coalition of American church groups that calls upon Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice to use America’s influence to end Israel’s police action in Gaza.

On Feb 29, Churches for Middle East Peace—a coalition of Protestant, Roman Catholic, Anglican and Orthodox churches and NGOs urged Secretary Rice to “take urgent action to address the still unresolved Gaza crisis.”

They denounced the “continuing violence and suffering experienced by Palestinians and Israelis” that “is hindering progress on the peace process” and its baleful consequences for the 2500 member “Christian community in Gaza.”

On Jan 17 Israel closed its borders in the wake of rocket attacks on civilian targets in Israel launched by Hamas.  Fighting has intensified in recent days with clashes between Israeli soldiers and Hamas militias drawing blood on both sides.

The church letter stated “The blockade of Gaza and the frequent occurrence of rocket attacks against southern Israel cannot be tolerated.”

“The blockade results in power outages, water and food shortages and a lack of adequate access to medical supplies that create a humanitarian crisis felt by all Gazans, while rocket attacks on Israel have targeted civilians indiscriminately and made normal life impossible in the areas affected,” the church leaders said.

Bishop Schori and the church leaders also expressed their “particular distress” with the Feb 15 bombing of the Gaza YMCA.  “Though authorities in Gaza have denounced this action, it follows the killing of a Christian bookseller last fall and is symptomatic of the deteriorating social conditions and instability that threaten the safety of all the residents of Gaza.”

Arab Christians were being trapped between a warring Hamas and Israel the letter said.  “A reduction of tensions in Gaza and the easing of daily life will strengthen the tiny Christian community just as progress on the peace process will help sustain Christian communities elsewhere in the region. Such steps are vital to preserving the cultural and religious pluralism that has long enriched the Middle East.”

A trial date has been set for the Bishop of Pennsylvania to adjudicate